"I
would advise against fluoridation..Side-effects
cannot be excluded
.. In
Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean
as possible with regard to
pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances."
- Dr. Arvid Carlsson,
co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)

"The American
Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no
harm
will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out
any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility
of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director
of Environmental Health, American Medical Association. [letter]

"I am appalled at
the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs.
Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on
a
long range basis. Any attempt to use water this
way is deplorable."
- Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical
Association.

"E.P.A. should act
immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of
bone fractures, arthritis,mutagenicity
and other effects." - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist
at E.P.A.

"Water contains a number of substances
that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one of them"
stated Dr.
F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at
the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors.

These
are strong, deliberate statements.They
are made by the top medical authorities in our nation
based on the latest medical research

Any
purported benefits of fluoridation are in scientific controversy.
Studies from 50 years ago do not pass muster under today's standards
for safety or effectiveness. Research from the same era also "proved"
cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Even
the AMA concedes that no
studies were done to determine any side effects caused by fluoridation.[letter]

The
fluoride used for water fluoridationdoes not have FDA approval
andis
considered by the FDA as an "unapproved drug". The proper
use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is
too much.
Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated
total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative. Research
shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving
300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily
amount.

Constitutional
and Civil liberty issues regarding the forced mass medication of
the population when alternative means of reducing cavities are easily
available, such as tooth brushing. Even so-called mandatory school
immunizations provide exemptions for parents who wish not to participate.

The
chemicals used for fluoridation are not high
purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts
of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration
of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic,
lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.

There
have been many government sponsored reports
- U.S., England and Canada - which have reviewed the various aspects of
fluoridation and all have questioned the practice. Even UNICEF,
the health arm of the United Nations, warns of fluoride's
negative effects.

Unfortunately,
most dental professionals have a difficult time accepting that new medical
and scientific understanding often change what we held to be true decades
earlier. This is just human nature.

Dennis
Mountjoy, a California Assemblymember, sponsored AB1565, a bill which
required fluoride compounds to tested and approved for safety and effectiveness.
Unfortunately, his colleagues thought his idea was too radical! They believed
our children's health was a secondary consideration when confronted by
industry lobbyists. [read his letter]

Several
environmental groups are also on
record as opposing fluoridation due to its
impact on plants and animals, including people.

The
Center for Children's
Health and the Environment, a part of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine,
demonstrates the relationship between exposure to toxic chemicals and
childhood illness.

"Of
the thousands of synthetic chemicals on the market, relatively few have
been tested for safety. And even fewer have been tested in combination
with other chemicals. For our health, for our childrens health,
such testing should be in place for all chemicals." - Center
for Children's Health

One
of the arguments by those advocating fluoridation is that it's needed
to help the poor kids. The latest report by the Surgeon General, "Oral
Health in America" (May 2000) stated "..80 percent
of Medicaid kids don't receive dental care because few dentists take Medicaid."
Perhaps the money used to fluoridate could be better used to subsidize
dental care.

Delta
Dental, the largest dental insurance company in California advocates fluoridation
and gives grants to cities to who fluoridate. In our local area, we estimate
they given away over $1 million. In what can only be considered a hypocritical
action, Delta Dental
advocates fluoridation but won't pay for any dental repair work caused
by fluorosis.

And
in a new devious twist, the American Dental Association, acting like teenage
hackers, bought the domain name "www.fluoridealert.com" and
"www.fluoridealert.net" to deceive web surfers away from fluoridation
opponents' website, http://www.fluoridealert.org. Instead, with a slip
of a "dot com," unsuspecting web surfersare tricked to the American
Dental Association's pro-fluoridation information.

Dr. Hirzy, EPA Sr. Scientist, called for a "moratorium
on fluoridation" as he testified before
the U.S. Senate on June 29, 2000 about the dangers of water fluoridation.
Citing numerous studies he said that when the relative toxicity levels
of lead, fluoride, and arsenic were compared, fluoride is slightly less
toxic than arsenic and more toxic than lead. The federal maximum contaminant
level (MEL) for lead is 15 parts per billion (pub), with the EPA recommending
5 pub for arsenic; yet the maximum contaminant level for fluoride has
been established by EPA at 4000 pub.

Even
the federal government is concerned about fluoridation. The U.S. Army
Medical Command, MEDCOM, which is in chargeof the Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, in Washington, D.C. and three
other major in stallations are concerned about fluoridating the water
supply of Fort Detrick, Maryland. They contacted an acknowledged expert
in neurotoxicity, Dr. Mullenix, and requested an expert opinion concerning
fluoridation. Dr. Mullenix's revealing analysis
stated that "fluoride exposures today are out of control," and
".. there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today
far exceed the hoped for benefit."Dr.
Mullenix cites data from 18 clinical studies in her analysis.

A
Toxicological Profile done by
the Department of Health and Human Resources, revealed that certain people
may beunusually susceptible to the toxic effects of
fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people
with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people
with cardiovascular and kidney problems. Other studies
show some people do have an allergic reaction to fluoride.

Dr.
Mullienix is not alone. Dr. James B. Patrick,
a Harvard Ph.D and former NIH (National Inst. of Health) scientist, testified
in front the U.S. Congress in 1982 about why most European nations reject
fluoridation.

In
Sweden the government sought the opinion of the Nobel Medical Institute,
one of
the most prestigious in the world. The Institute recommended against fluoridation,
based largely toxicity, and Swedish water remains unfluoridated. In a
similar manner the French government consulted the Pasteur Institute.
That Institute strongly recommended against fluoridation and France also
remains unfluoridated.

The respected magazine Newsweek, advised the public that "political
decisions [about fluoridation] were at odds with expert advice"
and "fluoride from your tap may
not do much good-and may cause cancer."

In
1992, Newsweek published another fluoride safety related
article, "Is Science Censored?",
a look at how political considerations influence what scientific studies
get published.

A
quote from the leading paid advocate for fluoridation,

"a
most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician
or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional
standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation
of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards
of practice" (Michael Easley, Director of the National Center for
Fluoridation Policy & Research).

Comments
like these led the associate technical director for Consumers Union, Dr.
Edward Groth, to conclude that

"the
political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian,
essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate
of scientific issues." (Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The
Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate, 1991)

The
University of California at Davis also has interesting things to say regarding
the deceptive use of statistics to promote fluoride. [letter]

No fluoride
advocate ever discusses how much fluoride is already being consumed in
the food and beverages we drink. If they did, the truth would be known
that we already consume excessive amounts of fluoride from our diets.
The need for water fluoridation would be unnecessary.

For
example, if you have cereal with milk and
a Coke, you have overdosed on fluoride. You have exceeded the
American Dental Association's recommended daily dose by over 130%.

Many
juices our children drink are loaded with fluoride, just look at the list
and you can see for yourself. A number of laboratory analysis are available.

If
we examine an average elementary school
lunch in a nonfluoridated community, we can get
an estimate of how much fluoride our children are actually receiving.
The facts clearly show an overdose of the "recommended" amount
of fluoride in just one school meal.

In
Ireland, the Chairman and six other councillors of the Kildare
County Council took a urine test to check the current level of
fluoride in their system after a lecture by a British expert discussed
how we are already overdosed on fluoride. The test showed they had enough
fluoride to cause medical concern even though their community isn't fluoridated.

In
1993, the Environmental Studies and Toxicology Board of the National Research
Council (NRC) reported that fluoridation
of municipal drinking water supplies may result in dental fluorosis in
about 10% of the population.You
have a 1 in 10 chance of experiencing tooth damage from water fluoridation!!

Even
UNICEF,
a United Nations organization, cautions that excess fluoride exposure
negatively affects children's health. In their official position
statement, they state, "But more and more scientists are now seriously
questioning the benefits of fluoride, even in small amounts."

See what mild fluorosis looks like
and then decide if it's o.k. for your children's teeth to be disfigured.

In
1993, the National Research Council stated African-American children experience
twice the prevalence of dental fluorosis as white children and it tended
to be more severe.

Fluoride
advocates also don't want you to know that the chemicals used for fluoridation
are not pharmaceutical quality, rather they are derived from the waste
byproducts of fertilizer manufacturing. Unfortunately, they also contain
heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic. Chemifloc Ltd., a fluoridation
chemical manufacturer, clearly states this in a letter.

NSF,
a corporation which developed drinking water standards stated the "most common contaminant in
[fluoridated water] is arsenic" along with other significant contaminants,
such as lead.The
chemicals used for fluoridation exhibitsimilar
toxicity as lead and arsenic
but are permitted in 100x quantities.

Children
exposed to lead at levels now considered safe scored substantially lower
on intelligence tests, according to researchers who suggest one in every
30 children in the United States suffers harmful effects from the metal.

There
is no safe level of blood lead, said Dr. Bruce Lanphear, lead author
of the lead study presented Monday at the
Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

The
New England Journal of Medicine reported that
the vast majority of cancers (50%) are caused .. by environmental and
behavioral factors such as chemical pollutants.

Here's
an plant in Florida where fertilizer
is processed and fluoride is created as a waste byproduct. Other plants
are in Juarez, México. Even more interesting is the published description,
by a large manufacturer, of
various uses of this fertilizer byproduct, such as "Rust and Stain
removal for textiles" and "Wood preservative"

The
City of Palo Alto California, home of Stanford University, is well aware
of the dangers of fluoridation. In Palo Alto's published
water analysis, they also identify the source of fluoride, fertilizer
manufacturer, and states that fluoridation damages water pipes [because
it dissolves lead out of the pipes and/or solder joints]

Several
states, including Nevada, have laws
that identify chemicals used for pesticides. Included is sodium fluoride,
a chemical used for water fluoridation.

The fluoride
controversy isn't new. In 1997, the city of Natick Mass.
considered the fluoridation of the town's water supply. In
order to sort out conflicting claims, they commissioned a respected team
of top scientists to analyze the data
and make recommendations. The widely read analysis is known as the Natick
Report. The panel of doctors and scientists made 12 very specific
recommendations. In summary, the scientists "emphatically" recommended
the water supply "not be fluoridated." Their analysis also concluded
a host of other medical problems may ensue from artificially fluoridating
the water.

In
March 2000, Wilmington Massachusetts also reviewed both sides of the fluoridation
issue and decided against it. The town's Board of Health cited many critical
concerns in their five page summary.

The
City of Auburndale Florida was so
concerned about the health of workers handling fluoridation chemicals,
they changed what they were doing.

Most
recently, the York Report, a review
of several hundred selected papers on fluoridation
was published. Profluoridationists touted the report as "proving"
fluoridation was safe. So misleading were their statements, that in an
unusual step, the Chairman in charge of the York Report had to issue
a statement a month later clarifying what was stated in the report,
including "The
review did not show water fluoridation to be safe."

Natick,
Wilmington and Auburndale aren't alone. Over 80
cities have rejectedfluoride
since 1996, including Santa Clara,
Santa Cruz and Mtn. View California in 1985. This includes a number of
towns which already were fluoridated.

In
an 1998 fluoridation advisory vote in Mtn. View, a small town in northern
California, population 75,000, the American Dental Association (ADA) spent
over $50,000 in a political campaign
to promote fluoridation. They paid almost $5 for every yes vote they received,
an expensive campaign by any standards. Perhaps the money would be better spent towards
subsidizing dental care for those who can't afford it instead of purchasing
slick campaign brochures.

The
ADA states fluoridation is 100% safe (if not swallowed). Dentists cannot
give a professional opinion of the safety of fluoridated ingested water.
The California Board of Dental Examiners recently issued a letter
(Dec. '99) stating that "Effects
of ingested fluoride is not within the purview of dentistry!!" Dentists can not give a professional opinion as to the safety
of fluoridated water as they would be practicing medicine without a license.

Why
doesn't your dentist warn you about the negatives? The ADA simply refuses
to discuss any negatives of fluoridation with member dentists or the public
and wants no public discussion.

According
to Section 20 of the American Dental Association Code of Ethics, "Dentists'
non-participation [ in fluoridation promotion]
is overt neglect of professional responsibility." In recent years, several dentists who have testified on the
anti-fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state dental officers.
If a dentist speaks out against fluoridation, he could lose his license.
This is professional and scientific censorship.

It's
also impossible to discuss or debate any ADA member. They simply refuse
to attend any town debate where fluoridation is the topic. Their strategy
is not to expose the subject to common sense. When open minded people
hear both sides, the ADA's arguments fall flat and fluoridation fails.

Perhaps
this is why the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) retaliated
against Dr. Marcus, an EPA Senior Toxicologist,
by firing him in May 1992 for his scientific reports which recommended
removing fluoride from drinking water. The EPA
was sued and found by the Court to have destroyed key documents and lied
about other evidence.

The
best proof as to which side current science supports is to prove it in
court with expert witnesses. There were
three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois
and Texas.

Testimony
in the Texas case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully described the
benefits and risks of water fluoridation. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction
against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on
jurisdictional grounds but his findings of fact were not disturbed by
appellate action.

Here's
what Texas Judge Farris said was PROVEN in court.

"That
the artificial
fluoridation
of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City
Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic
damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental
mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate
malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of
said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of
tooth decay in man." - Judge Farris

From
August 1995 to August 1996, the American
Dental Association's list of endorsements diminished
by the following eleven national associations and organizations.